G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl wrote:
	I thought that Bliss was introduced as an alternative
	language system for people with a spastic problem.

That is the niche in which Blissymbolics has survived,
but it is not at all what it was created for.
Bliss had seen war in Europe, and believed that the division of
languages was part of the problem.  He wanted to make a notation
that *anyone* could communicate in.  The "Bliss boards" you see
these days are a tiny fragment of the system he devised.

	I think that I even can remember one Dutch word that could not
	be translated in American English: gezellig. 
	
In one sense, translation is always impossible.
The English word "the" doesn't seem to have an *EXACT* translation in
any European language; "the" in places where it shouldn't be and missing
from places where it should is a very common sign that an author is not
an American with a European name but a real European.
What of it?  Enough of the meaning of a _text_ can usually be got through.

One method of translation is incorporation.  Words like
"taonga", "iwi", and so on are very commonly found in New Zealand newspapers
and nobody bothers to translate them.  If it became important to a group of
American English speakers to talk about "gezellig", they would probably
learn what it meant and then use the Dutch word.

	Don't you expect to meet this time that kind of cultural context
	problems?
	
What kind of cultural context problems?  The word in question, "re",
is one which English picked up *untranslated* from European culture.
It appears that replies that continue concerning the same matter are as
much part of Low Countries culture as they are of the English cultures.